Not too long ago, American science educator, scientist and mechanical engineer William Nye, otherwise known as “Bill Nye the Science Guy,” participated in a public debate with Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis and the Creation Museum.

Ham is what you call a “young earth” creationist — that is, a person who advocates a literal interpretation of Genesis and that the earth is about 6,000 years old, given the genealogies listed in the Old Testament.

Nye, meanwhile, takes the commonly held scientific belief that the earth is 4.54 billion years old. I encourage everyone to look it up on the Internet, no matter what you personally believe. These are two intelligent men who both give interesting and well thought-out presentations of their argument. Ham’s argument coming from the Holy Bible and Nye’s from years upon years of scientific research, math and tedious observation by a multitude of scientists.

Nye was quoted by The Huffington Post prior to the debate: “Well, I don’t think I’m going to win over Mr. Ham any more than Mr. Ham thinks he’s going to win me over ... Instead, I want to show people that this belief is still among us ... it finds its way onto our school boards in the United States.”

For Nye, it wasn’t about the belief system itself — he was more concerned with the creationist’s push to have their version of the origin of the universe and man included in scientific text books.

“If the United States produces a generation of science students who don’t believe in science, that’s troublesome,” he said. “We want to raise the most scientifically literate students we can.”

What’s the problem with creationism, anyway? How is it contrary to science? Well, it doesn’t have to be. A less literal interpretation of Genesis allows for the belief in evolution and for the earth’s old age. Many scientists believe in God, while still being able to think objectively.

The problem is this: Whether you believe in the Bible or not is your decision, but it’s entirely faith based. And that’s perfectly fine. In fact, the bible asks it’s followers to have “child-like” faith.

The scientific method does not allow for faith. It simply does not. The scientific method reads as follows:

n Ask a question

n Do background research

n Construct a hypothesis

n Test your hypothesis by doing experiments

n Analyze your data and draw a conclusion

n communicate your results

Can scientists be wrong? Yes. Does that make the scientific method invalid? No. The beauty of the method is that it allows for things to change when new data is introduced. If a creationist presented data to the scientific community that truly supported a created universe, they would change the world.

Don’t believe me? It’s happened over and over. The world was once believed to be flat until new data proved it otherwise. The world was once believed to be the center of the solar system until new data proved it to be otherwise. When this data was finally introduced, it was the church that fought against its acceptance, not scientists.

“There are trees on this planet that are older than you say the earth is,” Nye told Ham during the debate.

Even if you disagree with the theories, I feel you are doing yourself and the world a disservice to demand the scientific method being disregarded in schools in favor of creationism.

Here’s why: Creationism is faith-based, but not everyone shares your particular faith. Imagine living in a country where Christians are the minority and paganism or Islam is being taught in the schools rather than the nondenominational scientific theory of creation.

Imagine how you would feel about that. Try and remember that people hold their beliefs just as passionately as you hold yours. It’s very personal. You don’t want to put stock in the method? That’s fine — but the scientific method produced every luxury you currently enjoy. Your smart phone, your computer, your car and your air conditioner. Do you really want to live in a world where our scientists abandon the scientific theory in favor of faith-based ideals? Most scientists will tell you, “This is our best guess based on the evidence we have, but we think it’s a very good one.”

I think it’s important to realize that science isn’t the enemy of Christianity — it can be the marvel of His creation. Understanding how amazing our universe is can open your eyes to the majesty of our maker and how utterly breathtaking it is to be living on this “pale blue dot suspended in a sunbeam.”

The accepted age for the earth wasn’t simply made up. It was devised from a range of experiments and observations made across multiple disciplines of science such as astronomy, geology, biology, paleontology, chemistry, geomorphology and physics. It’s man’s best guess. What do I personally believe? Well, both. I believe in God and science. Each new discovery is like a window into the unfathomable to me.

My main issue is with people being purposely ignorant. When brilliant men spend their lives learning, whether it’s about their theology or their science, you should listen to them when they speak.

Don’t cast them aside without a second thought. The beauty of man is that our minds can open like parachutes and we can learn, learn, learn and from there go — who knows? Anywhere. Until then I ask you, which is more important — fervently debating the age of the earth or showing love, mercy and compassion to your fellow man? Which one is more likely to spread God’s love?